Personal computing discussed
tanker27 wrote:Its often that I find what took someone 100 lines of code to do I can do in 20. And sometimes my peers can do it in 10 or 5.
morphine wrote:Fallout 4: don't agree. The engine itself runs stupid fast even on older hardware (esp. because it's 2011 Skyrim's engine with a few extra touches). What happens is that in certain specific spots, there are sharp performance dips for no apparent reason.
tanker27 wrote:While I dont code for video games I am speaking with a developers hat on. Sometimes we code just to see what works. Proof of concept type of stuff. For instance Witcher 3's Hairworks. Its fantastic when it works, meaning you have the correct hardware to push it. But even if you don't it was coded in a way that its an on/off toggle. Which when doing these types of things it should always be. Poorly Optimized would come into play if they forced it on for everyone. Thats my 2 cents.
Aranarth wrote:Optimization is a DESIGN issue not a speed issue.
Is the computer doing unnecessary calculations not how fast is the computer doing those calculations.
morphine wrote:Crysis 1 was poorly optimized, and I defend that POV to this day. Yes, it was ahead of its time graphically and that has a cost. But it also scaled like crap running uphill as you added more hardware.
Fallout 4: don't agree. The engine itself runs stupid fast even on older hardware (esp. because it's 2011 Skyrim's engine with a few extra touches). What happens is that in certain specific spots, there are sharp performance dips for no apparent reason.
Basically, I call a game "poorly optimized" when the resulting graphics don't match the hardware powering it, when compared to other past and current titles. However, we also need to take care in considering reasonable graphics settings, because pretty much every game in the past few years has had a particular performance-murdering setting that one is wise to leave off.
DX:MD, for example, is actually pretty darn good. Its graphics are absolutely stunning, and it runs pretty well. What it has is 3-4 advanced settings that will melt your graphics card for only a little image quality increase. See also Witcher 3.
i67.tinypic.com/2wdc801.png
synthtel2 wrote:The same game built on a more typical modern engine would be a lot lighter on CPUs (no 4C 2.8 GHz Sandy as the min spec), wouldn't have so much performance inconsistency, and would be less fragile / glitch-prone, at the expense of moddability and probably a slightly higher GPU requirement. It's pretty light and fast as is, but it's not exactly the most advanced game around, and it could be a lot lighter and faster.
Moddability is the reason I usually give Bethesda a free pass. A lot of the reasons they're known for certain kinds of sloppy work are the exact same reasons modding is so easy.
morphine wrote:All this talk about Fallout 4... did I miss the part where it's slow? o_O
Maybe I missed something, but the game runs pretty darn fast, and speed has never really been much of a complaint. Heck, even back then I had to cap Skyrim at 60FPS because of the physics engine snafu.
morphine wrote:synthtel2 wrote:The same game built on a more typical modern engine would be a lot lighter on CPUs (no 4C 2.8 GHz Sandy as the min spec), wouldn't have so much performance inconsistency, and would be less fragile / glitch-prone, at the expense of moddability and probably a slightly higher GPU requirement. It's pretty light and fast as is, but it's not exactly the most advanced game around, and it could be a lot lighter and faster.
Moddability is the reason I usually give Bethesda a free pass. A lot of the reasons they're known for certain kinds of sloppy work are the exact same reasons modding is so easy.
So what you mean is "it runs pretty well all things considered, but Bethesda could have done an even better job?"
morphine wrote:So what you mean is "it runs pretty well all things considered, but Bethesda could have done an even better job?"
synthtel2 wrote:The CPU requirements are more concerning, though, doubly so because of the death of Moore's law and triply so because throwing more cores at Creation doesn't solve anything. If a game is heavy on GPUs, at least we've still got another couple nodes worth of scaling in that space (though I'm sure we'll see the exact same problem there once GPU progression starts looking like that of post-Sandy CPUs).
To be clear, I'm not saying graphics are so important as all that. It just annoys me when they and/or other parts of a game aren't as good as the game's performance indicates they should be.